MagicMush123 said:

So you wouldn't strip literal nazis of their citizenships?

---

MagicMush123 said:

I find that funny that people can be so agianst nazis, or white supremacists but at he same time show sympathy for terrorists.

---

MagicMush123 said:

And that fact that you literally had to get on a plane and join them. There was no gun to her head. She did it on her own terms. How could any person have sympathy for someone who left their haven and set out to destroy it?

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

People who end up stateless live in a legal limbo that effectively puts an end to any possibilities of a normal life.

---

How many people killed by ISIS and their supporters have any possibility of a normal life?

---

XUL said:

She never had citizenship.

---

koods said:

She was born in the US.

---

Quote:

Lewis Siwel
20 February at 08:21
edit: This has come up a lot, so before we get started, know that Begum's father is not known to be involved in extremism (you're thinking of Amira Abase), and Shamima Begum is unrelated to Sharmeena Begum. On the flipside, Begum's mother did not die of cancer and that is not why she was vulnerable to brainwashing. Agree or disagree with the body of this post, but both sides of the debate have started to just post full-on lies to make their position seem obvious, and it's wearing thin. The whole point is it's complicated.

Also, please remember this is a Facebook post intended for a small audience that ended up going a bit mad. My Facebook page is like my house: if I've invited you in, you'd better not shit on my floor. Discuss, but play nice. Any hate speech or aggression WILL be reported.

All cool? Lovely. Then let's begin.

***

I'm super horrified by so many responses to the incredibly complicated Shamima Begum case (including by some people on my FB list tbh). "It's ISIS, even a 15 year old should know how dreadful a group ISIS is", "She shows no remorse", and "She's a threat to national security" seem to be the most common problematic responses. I've been listening to Rukmini Callimachi's phenomenal podcast Caliphate again recently - so largely for my own sanity, I'm gonna break these down based on what I've learned.

1) You gotta understand that ISIS has an entire recruitment strategy based around taking vulnerable Muslim children - kids who feel isolated and out of place and insecure about their faith - and making them feel like they have a new family. They hang out on message boards and groom kids, in the same way child sex offenders do. Over time, they paint ISIS as the misunderstood side of the story. Illustrate how they've been turned into the boogieman by the West. Show how Western society will never appreciate them they way ISIS does. They make lonely kids feel safe and wanted and make their home nation seem like the real enemy.

Then - here's the genius bit - having spent the past however long praising them for their faith, they then start to cast doubts in their mind. "Wait, you didn't know you were supposed to reject those around you who aren't Muslim? Have you even read the Quran? Maybe you don't understand this as much as we thought you did..." They make vulnerable kids feel safe and welcome for the first time in their life, then play on their insecurities to get them to fall in line. They employ professional recruiters to carry out this strategy. It's a dastardly sales technique, masterful psychological manipulation. Begum may have known what she was doing, but she didn't fully understand why.

2) Once you're in ISIS, their MO is essentially threefold, two of which are relevant here. One, they break down your empathy. Two, they convince you that everything they're asking you to do is religiously justified.

So they have counsellors who coach you through the process of leaving behind your family. Who teach you how to suppress any feelings of shame. For the men, who sign up for battle, they walk you through the emotions you're gonna feel when you first kill someone. They start you off in the slaughterhouse, then they have realistic mannequins that you kill, then you do your first kill as part of a firing squad, and all along there are people whose job it is to work with your emotions with the goal of removing your ability to fucking *feel* anything.

You're living in a community of people who are constantly showing you how the group's actions are justified. They have educated acedemics, who teach you how to interpret certain sections of the Quran in new ways. Remember, you're a vulnerable, probably uneducated kid. They use that authority to convince you. And there's no one around to help you challenge that. Over time, as your emotions are worn down, you grow to believe that to show remorse would be sacreligious anyway. It is a tremendously common thing among new ISIS defectors, to have realised there are problems with ISIS and to want to leave, while refusing to accept that you regret joining and supporting them in the first place. Radicalisation takes time to deprogram.

3) Yeah, maybe she is a threat to national security. Who knows? I have to trust that the correct procedures will be followed to ascertain this, and that if she is, she will receive a custodial sentence, just like other people who are a threat to national security or those around them.

But to strip her of her citizenship? That's playing into ISIS' hands.

Remember I said their MO is threefold? The third thing they do is they make you believe that no one outside of ISIS will ever take them back. It's how they get people to stay for long enough to break them. They take vulnerable, isolated children, and make them believe that ISIS is the only place they will ever again be safe and loved. And every time a country behaves like this to one of their own citizens, you can be sure that becomes propaganda material. "Look at the callous, uncaring West, rejecting unhappy Muslim kids yet again."

The way we break ISIS' propaganda and programming strategy is by proving it to be demonstrably false. Let Begum be tried in a court of law if needs be. But for goodness sake, bring her back, and show some fucking humanity. She was a child. She was groomed and brainwashed and programmed and had her entire sense of self destroyed and rebuilt by a murderous cult. To say she asked for it, that she deserves what she got, is the height of victim blaming.

I implore anyone who hasn't listened to Caliphate to do so - it's an extraordinary bit of reporting, phenomenal insight into a group that has surprisingly complex ways of operating, and how they managed to get tens of thousands of troubled kids to join up with them. It's terrifying, but I think it explains a lot of this really well.

***

Couple of updates.

1) Welp, this went a bit viral, that's a surprise. In light of this I want to clarify two things that have been strangely misconstrued a few times.

One: You can feel free to take this as a complete and utter rejection of ISIS and its beliefs and and behaviours. It is a terrorist group, a fake state that has only ever existed to expand and exert power, in the name of a religion that almost exclusively rejects its ideologies. ISIS has done, and continues to do, awful things, one of which is to employ sophisticated indoctrination techniques to convince young and vulnerable children to join its ranks. This makes it an enormously complicated situation - because in a very real sense, they are both criminals and victims.

Two: I have no idea whether or not Begum is a security threat. The correct way to deal with this, if there is a suspicion that she is, would be to put her on trial. Due process can then be followed to determine the best way to deal with the situation in order to protect the wider population. All I know is that ISIS indoctrinates children and that, in this sense, she is a victim. In any case, she is not just being treated as guilty before being proven so, but ripped of her citizenship - something so fundamentally a part of a human being's rights - before there has been any attempt to understand the circumstances of her joining ISIS, and pretty much exclusively because of the media attention on her specifically (and not the hundreds of other people who have been allowed to return from the IS and keep their citizenship). That's what is at issue here.

2) The foreign minister of Bangladesh has just now released a statement saying Begum cannot claim Bangladeshi citizenship. This means that if the UK proceeds with its plans to revoke her British citizenship, Begum will be stateless. This means she will not legally be able to settle anywhere on the planet. It is to sentence her to life as either a refugee or a criminal. It is also in breach of international law but I honestly think that's beside the point.

***

Additional update: People are getting muddled in the comments between this case and another case of a British Muslim who left to join ISIS, around the same time, who has a similar name. There is no evidence that Shamima Begum's family were in any way involved with or supportive of ISIS or Islamic extremism. You are thinking of someone else.

***

On Begum's citizenship, and that of others like her...

For anyone interested in knowing more about how the process of stripping someone of their citizenship works, this is a great article to read: https://threadreaderapp.com/.../1098150749454983168.html...

The article explains how the law essentially permits the Home Secretary to strip anyone of their citizenship, without trial or prosecution, ONLY IF they have foreign ancestry.

If Begum were a white British girl with British parents and British grandparents, the Government would not be legally allowed to deny her the right to return - even though she would be no more or less a British citizen than she is now.
Indeed, it is spurious whether or not the Government is acting legally now, as the law provides only for the UK to revoke her citizenship if it has "reason to believe" she is eligible for citizenship elsewhere. We are now in a stand-off with Bangladesh, both nations saying "nope" - but as Begum is a British citizen, it is Britain's responsibility to sort this mess out, under UN law.

But - this may interest some of you - the article also explains how revoking the citizenship of British ISIS supporters, thus making them theoretically stateless, poses a fundamental security risk at home and abroad: because it means that no nation has any legal jurisdiction over that person, and no nation has a responsibility to convict and punish them for their crimes.

It's well worth a read.

---

qman said:

koods said:

She was born in the US.

---

That's the main problem, why have birthright citizenship and have them here or the EU in the first place?

---

Quote:

The attitude to immigrants which is betrayed by the stripping of citizenship from Shamima Begum is truly appalling. A British citizen, born in the UK, is deemed to be a citizen of another country they have never seen, because their immigrant parents came from there. To refuse to accept first generation Britons are Britons, as in Windrush, was bad enough. To claim that second generation Britons are not British, but rather citizens of where their ancestors “came from”, is racism pure and simple.

Begum is not a sympathetic figure. Savid Javid could not have found an easier target for his macho display of vindictiveness, guaranteed to win plaudits from the bigots whose votes Javid needs for his looming Tory leadership bid. Javid knows full well his decision will eventually be overturned by the courts, but he has already achieved his political objective of personal self-aggrandisement.

I do not know everything Begum has personally been doing in Syria and to what extent she has been culpable in any of the crimes of the Saudi backed jihadist group Daesh, originally launched by the CIA as a counterweight to Shia influence in Iraq. Begum, as with other members of the ISIS community in Syria, ought initially to be subject to any legal proceedings by the Syrian authorities on behalf of the Syrian people against whom such dreadful crimes were committed. If of no interest to the Syrian justice system or once any sentence has been completed, she should be returned to the UK and then subject to investigation as to whether any UK crimes were committed. All these processes need to take into account that she arrived in Syria as a minor, has been subject to indoctrination, and may well have severe mental health issues.

In a situation where the government is falling over itself to bring members of the UK-funded jihadist support group the White Helmets to the UK, having no claim to British citizenship; in a situation where jihadist activity in Syria was entirely dependent on finance, supplies and air support from the US, UK, and its Gulf State allies; in a situation where the Royal Navy had evacuated the Manchester bomber en route back to the UK after his Western backed terrorist jaunt in Libya; in a situation where the Manchester, Westminster and London Bridge terrorists all had extensive pre-existing relationships with the British security services; in all these circumstances, the decision to crack down to general applause on a bewildered East London child is a sickening example of the lack of ethics in modern politics.

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

koods said:

She was born in the US.

---

That's the main problem, why have birthright citizenship and have them here or the EU in the first place?

---

its in the constitution?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Because it sets a bad precedent for countries to shrug responsibility of their own citizens.

Canada has deported many foreigners accused of terrorism back to their countries of origin. What if these countries started following suit, revoked citizenship, and refused their reentry? Okay, so we we got rid of the handful of Canadians committing terrorism abroad, but now we're stuck with terrorists from around the world who can't be returned to their countries of origin. The flip side of deporting terrorist foreigners from our countries, is accepting the return of our terrorist citizens from other countries.

The extreme result of a breakdown of this international convention would be foreign governments putting all the undesirable citizens they have, shipping them off to another country, revoke citizenship status, and washing their hands clean. The international convention of sovereign states holding ultimate responsibility for their citizens is an important one because it protects us just as much as a country like Syria. We should not allow it to weaken even a little.

MagicMush123 said:

But in the case of foreign terrorism, where you're essentially abandoning your country to fight agianst your country, i feel that barring entry or citizenship removal is warranted. When you leave your country to fight against it, you re essentially abandoning your citizenship right?

---

The punishment for high treason against Canada is life imprisonment, not barred entry or citizenship removal. I think the existing punishment is not only sufficient, but preferable. Why do you think otherwise?

MagicMush123 said:

And if you have a mess of a country like Syria or whatever, what exactly is the harm in leaving them there, they kinda made their own bed right?

---

I imagine a lot of harm could come from revoking citizenship status of international terrorists instead of bringing them home to face justice. Unless you feel that we should start assassinating our citizens accused of terrorism abroad without trial (another dangerous precedent), than the result of revoking citizenship doesn't actually solve the problem, it just let's us claim it's not our problem anymore. Do you feel comfortable with the idea of leaving terrorists to their own devices in a foreign country? Just because we say it's not our problem anymore doesn't mean it won't come back to bite us in the ass.

MagicMush123 said:

The reason why I don't see your parallels is that it doesn't make sense to do that to domestic terrorists, they're already in the country and usually native.  I couldn't ever see the government citizenship stripping or deporting environmental or militant activists. The public would never be behind it. I just dont think our governments would ever take such an extreme stance. No matter how conservative the current leader happens to be

---

It's definitely a stretch, but it wouldn't be impossible. Both the RCMP and CSIS consider indigenous and environmental activists to be the biggest domestic security threat, and public stance can change, be swayed, or outright ignored. No one - not the anti-pipeline crowd, nor pro-pipine crowd - wanted Trudeau to pay billions for that unfinished pipeline but the government still went ahead with that deal. The protests against the Iraq war (in the USA) were the largest protests ever when they happened - didn't stop the government from continuing in its illegal invasion. You can't depend on the government listening to the will of the people.

Beyond that, I'm pretty sure every anti-terrorism law introduced post-9/11 has been misused and abused. The laws that weakened our rights in the name of fighting terrorism unsurprisingly were turned against us eventually. Why give them more ammunition?



The question I would pose to both you and XUL is this: what are the benefits of allowing our government to revoke citizenship and bar entry to our citizens, over bringing them home to face justice here? What are the risks of allowing our government to revoke citizenship and bar entry to our citizens? Personally, I see so much more risk of abuse than whatever cathartic benefit stripping citizenship poses. What benefits do you see coming from this decision that make this practice worth the risk of potential abuse?



And for the record: ISIS, nazi, or any other far-right extremists - my opinion stays same. Revocation of citizenship should not be our response.

---

XUL said:

Ms. Muthana’s father was a Yemeni diplomat, and children born in the United States to active diplomats are not bestowed birthright citizenship, since diplomats are under the jurisdiction of their home countries.

Mr. Pompeo said Ms. Muthana did not have “any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/world/middleeast/isis-bride-hoda-muthana.amp.html

---

Brian Jones said:

XUL said:

Ms. Muthana’s father was a Yemeni diplomat, and children born in the United States to active diplomats are not bestowed birthright citizenship, since diplomats are under the jurisdiction of their home countries.

Mr. Pompeo said Ms. Muthana did not have “any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/world/middleeast/isis-bride-hoda-muthana.amp.html

---

I'm no expert on this subject, but your link says she was born (in the U.S.) when her father was no longer a diplomat. Ok, that's what her lawyer says. And the counter-arguments is what Trump's people are saying.

    So it seems pretty simple. Find out what her father's actual status was at the time of her birth, and that answers the question of her citizenship. That's how it looks to me.

---

XUL said:

They did.

Case closed.

---

XUL said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43856/hammer-let-isis-bride-come-back-and-then-try-her-josh-hammer

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/isis-bride-hoda-muthana-us-citizen-sec-pompeo/story%3fid=61193487


P.S.

Don't be afraid to do some research for yourself.

---

XUL said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/world/middleeast/isis-bride-hoda-muthana.amp.html


Case closed.

---

Thanks for taking the time to post those links XUL, good reading

After reading through them I agree with your statement below (which is of course a quote from one of your links above)

XUL said:

The legal dispute only gets murkier from there.

---

Quote:

Over the weekend, Mr. Trump criticized allies in Europe for not doing enough to prosecute their citizens being held in Syria. “The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial,” he posted on Twitter.

---

XUL said:

It seems to me she had no business here due to being a diplomat's daughter.

Perhaps this is another reason not to give the government more power?

---

I'm struggling to follow your logic here.  What does a diplomat's daughter being in the US have to do not giving the Government more power?